The JQ… The list of things we can say about anything is getting smaller and smaller. That's the result of our experiment in equality and diversity, which force us into stiffer, more regulated expressions because equality is really about conflict.  When you hear equality your first thought should be who has control of its definition, who gets to be more equal than everyone else using emotion or threat or violence.  Blacks talk about racial equality while ignoring their violence and racism, gays talk about marriage equality while ignoring their social pathologies, women talk about sexual equality while ignoring their social advantages, and Jews manage to be the sum of all these.  Equality is the ultimate fighting word, it's a demand and an accusation and an immunity all at once. It's axiomatic. You only say equality when you want something from someone.

Jews have had something to do with this aggressive, self-seeking equality, or if you prefer "social justice". It is advanced as an inarguable good by secular Jews and defended by religious Jews as falling under tikkun olam, "repairing the world". The Jewish question is how diversity and equality and social justice seem to bring the most advantages to Jews themselves, even though they run an apartheid state, openly complain about intermarriage, control an outsized percentage of wealth, and dominate media and political life. Were this any other group they would be subject to open scrutiny, even moreso by the group they've taken power from. But the silence around the Jewish question is the most compelling evidence of its salience.

More at My Posting Career.   

Men's rights… It seems semi-controversial on the right to say this, but I have a very low opinion of the "men's rights" movement.  I am well-acquainted with the inequities of family law, but men's rights has much of the same problem as white nationalism and PUA culture, which is that it is a psychological retreat into black and white thinking.

To me there are two main problems:  being overly concerned with your own welfare (which belies tales of selfish ex-wives) in a system that evidently damages everyone, and ignoring all the problems on your own team while working up a good hate for The Other.  Ironically, men's rights is a movement of bitter men who definitely don't know why women are unhappy, which suggests why their relationships might have failed.  Their two central arguments, that women have an incentive to divorce and that child support is a burden unfairly heaped on men, both have very problematic (well, outright stupid) premises.  Meanwhile, their blame women stance has zero appeal to normal human beings, who see a much different, more complicated reality than the men's rights caricature.

Then there's this:  How many guys want to argue about female behavior, and then go off and have casual sex with girlfriends, enjoy the benefits of a woman's added income to a household, and jerk off to a lot of porn and sexualized culture?  Ugh, those feminists have brainwashed women! Guys, look in the mirror.  You've bought completely into the feminist culture--the part of it that works out well for you, anyway.

More at My Posting Career.   

A note to readers of National Review… Rich Lowry writes:

Needless to say, no one at National Review shares Derb?s appalling view of what parents supposedly should tell their kids about blacks in this instantly notorious piece here.

This is it, this is the time and issue with which to create a rift within conservatism.  Lowry is right:  the staff at National Review are essentially liberal quislings who want low taxes and war for Israel.  They are not conservatives.  And more importantly, on this issue they are aggressively lying to and misleading conservatives.

You should not believe these "appalling" things, says Lowry (using the tone of a moral hysteric).  How much more evidence do you need that Rich Lowry doesn't give a damn about you and yours?  You see, he's protected by wealth and social status.  You're not.  But he wants you to adopt his moral psychology, even though it is harmful for you to do so if you do not share his wealth and social status.  In effect, he wants you to come to harm so that he can maintain his standing with his liberal friends.  They all, in fact, want you to suffer for the privileges of their class.

The question is, do any National Review readers share Derb's "appalling" view?  I suspect many do.  Many are aware that blacks are less intelligent, more inclined to criminal behavior, more morally corrupt, more tolerant of violence and particularly violence directed at non-blacks.  (Has any black pundit voiced qualms about whether Trayvon Martin deliberately assaulted George Zimmerman?)  They are aware of these things even if they are afraid to voice them, just as they are aware of similar differences between men and women.

Many parents leave moral instruction to chance and liberal institutions.  That's just the way Rich Lowry wants it.  He's got to secure his place at dinner parties, you see.  I hope you don't mind living with the rising tide of immigrants, being led by airhead pseudo-conservative tokens, or having your safety threatened by things that the staff at National Review aren't going to do anything about.  But if you do mind, for God's sake cancel your subscription today!  Turn your back on these fools!

More at My Posting Career.   

Media framing and gay suicide redux… Now that the Dharun Ravi "gay bullying" trial has reached its ignominious conclusion, it's time to recall that:

• Tyler Clementi did not commit suicide because of a dorm room prank, but because he had longstanding mental health problems related to his mother's disapproval
• Tyler Clementi's family sought to shield internal rifts in order to foist all the blame for Tyler's suicide on an innocent third party
• Tyler Clementi's behavior included looking online for anonymous sexual encounters, and bringing a complete stranger into a shared living space on multiple occasions without regard to safety or his roommate's possessions--typical homosexual behavior
• The "bias intimidation" charge actually defines a crime by how the "victim" feels about it--in other words, if you are a weakling, it's a crime, if you're normal, it's not
• Tyler Clementi knew about the webcam after the first time and expressed indifference about it and slight annoyance at his roommate for setting it up
• Tyler Clementi made racist statements about Ravi even before meeting him, and is unlikely to have found Ravi's attitudes about homosexuality (whatever they were) "intimidating"

In other words, the media has lied to you.  Gay activists have lied to you.  The entire, overnight creation of an "anti-bullying" movement is based on a lie and the hysteria created by that lie, not on informed, calculated reason.  As such it has become a danger to your rights, too.

It's time to push back.  Read more at My Posting Career.   

John Stossel's Illegal Everything… A link to John Stossel's Fox program "Illegal Everything" prompted some discussion recently about Stossel's brand of libertarian political critique.  Stossel's reverse muckracking seems like a typical "culture war" distraction. It's a way of waving the red flag to get his conservative audience to act in predictable, unthinking ways.  An excerpt from the discussion:

So if you can't keep capitalists from undermining "the free market" in saturated markets, what can you do? Here is where the libertarians are left haplessly behind--they have no answer other than demanding that a virtuous majority vote unerringly in favor of ideologically pure politicians. How will they bring about this virtuous majority, up from the * percentages they routinely poll? No answer.

More at My Posting Career.   

Sobbing about SOPA… In general, the anti-SOPA arguments are meritless fear-mongering, and the results they predict either could not come true for practical reasons (surely once the bill is passed nerds will immediately attempt to jam up the works by reporting everyone and anything for violations), or are typical emotional appeals that have little to do with SOPA's aim or likely implementation.  The idea that the federal government will begin blindly shutting down websites based on obvious planting of pirated material is risible.

So what should you think about SOPA? One, it won't hurt you or the websites you use, unless the websites you use are actively promoting piracy. Two, opposition to SOPA is a smokescreen that conceals the growing power of Big Technology, a power it is increasingly wielding in ways that actually can hurt you. Three, the powers in question are far more safely invested with governments than with private corporations, where there is less oversight and less accountability. Do you want fewer corporate megaliths wielding more power? What is in your interests?

Read more at My Posting Career.   

Kiss Me Deadly: Paranoia in the 1950s, part 1… Kiss Me Deadly begins with Cloris Leachman's orgasmic panting as she runs along a highway clad only in a trenchcoat. Mike Hammer (Ralph Meeker) swerves onto the shoulder to avoid her, testily tells the speechless (but not breathless) Leachman to get in, then drives into the night. The novelty credits feature title cards coming toward the viewer in reverse style while Leachman pants and grunts from the passenger seat.
 
"Your thumb isn't good enough for you, you've got to use your whole body," Hammer gripes. "Would you have stopped if I'd used my thumb?" she asks. It won't be the last time a woman puts her whole body to use, or the last time someone draws an innuendo out for effect. Kiss Me Deadly is 50s pulp right down to its garters and cold skin; it's a reminder that this decade was as alive and as interesting as any.

More at My Posting Career.   

Chistopher Hitchens, the hatheist… How to remember Hitchens?  A drunk who made passes at men, a globetrotting narcissist who probably spent more time with his fannish admirers than with his own children, a bridge-burning provocateur who carried on feuds with a number of ex-friends and his own brother, a bon vivant whose body became a bloated symbol of his hedonism, a vain snob who preached socialism (which he belatedly abandoned) while living quite above the level of the working class (whose company he could not have cared for)--too ungenerous?

More at My Posting Career.